How the VFW-PAC Works

I can't take credit for this because one of my fellow VFW Post members did all of the work. That said, here is how the VFW-PAC works, PER their by-laws. The editorial comments are my friends.

Let's look at the VFW PAC By-laws to see:

In the first place, the mission of the VFW PAC is simply stated in Article 2 of the By-laws:

ARTICLE II -PURPOSE
The VFW-PAC is established to promote and facilitate the accumulation and distribution of voluntary contributions from employees and members of the Veterans ofForeign Wars of the United States and its subordinate units, (Posts, Districts, CountyCouncils, Departments, Ladies Auxiliary and Military Order of the Cooties) for the support of various candidates for election to federal office in the United States. The established endorsement criteria not withstanding, no Presidential candidate will be endorsed by the VFW-PAC Board of Directors. The VFW-PAC is dedicated to the support of candidates who have taken responsible positions on issues involving national defense and legislation pertaining to our nation's veterans.

I have emboldened the guiding principles of our PAC.  There is no party or ideological criteria; we support only those who support us.

How is that determined?  Simple:

THE ENDORSEMENT POLICY REQUIRES MEMBERS OF
THE SENATE TO CAST A MINIMUM OF 7 VOTES IN
CONCERT WITH THE VFW’S POSITION

THE ENDORSEMENT POLICY REQUIRES MEMBERS OF
THE HOUSE TO CAST A MINIMUM OF 10 VOTES IN
CONCERT WITH THE VFW’S POSITION

In other words, our endorsement of candidates is entirely driven by how much they support issues and bills important to the VFW and it's membership.  There is no other guiding principle.  They either have a demonstrated willingness to vote for issues important to Veteran's and on-duty personnel, or they don't get our support.

Among the charges leveled at the PAC is that they've favored incumbents and that's true. It IS weighted in favor of incumbents, or those already in office running for another seat.  Why?  Because it's unlikely that an opposition candidate will have such a track record if he or she has never held federal office before, so they will not, cannot, be considered by the PAC for support.  The By-laws make it pretty clear that our support is only given to those who have shown a willingness to support us.

So, who looks at the evidence of Congressional voting records and makes the decision of who gets what from us?  Who must they consult before making such a decision?  This is an important question because another charge laid against the PAC in regards to this year's endorsements is that the PAC did not follow established procedure and did not consult with the state departments, local posts and membership.

The By-laws are pretty clear about that too.  The final decisions are made by the Director, the Treasurer and a nine member Board of Director's, ALL of whom are appointed by the National Commander and they DO NOT HAVE TO CONSULT WITH ANYONE.  They may, if they wish, take advice from anyone they chose, but there is no official line of communication with anyone other than themselves.  That's how the system was set up and that's how it's operated.  As anyone who knows something about tax-exempt organizations knows, such an organization operates outside it's published By-laws at great peril to its tax exempt status and the PAC has done nothing at variance with those By-laws when determining who to endorse.

Here's the By-law dictated official duties of the Director and the Board of Directors.  I have emboldened the pertinent parts and I have skipped the official duties of the Treasurer because they do not relate to how a decision to support, or not support, a candidate is made.  You may see the official duties of the Treasurer by accessing the link provided at the end of this message.

ARTICLE VI - DUTIES OF THE DIRECTOR
The duties of the Director shall include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:
A. Coordinate the solicitations of contributions by the Committee;
B. Consult with the Board of Directors and other knowledgeable persons and make recommendations to the committee concerning which parties and candidates for federal office should receive support and in what amount;
C. Direct the Treasurer to disburse funds in amounts authorized by the committee;

ARTICLE VIII - DUTIES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
B. Determine, as committee members, those candidates who are deserving of the  support of the committee and in what amounts such support should be given;

The guidelines for making such recommendations and offering such support to candidates was noted above.

Once a list of candidates deserving of our support has been decided upon, the next step is the actual disbursement of funds to help their campaigns.  The By-laws dictate how that is to be done too and what criteria are to be used in choosing how much to give to whom:

ARTICLE X - DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS
In determining how funds shall be distributed, the committee shall consider the recommendations of the Director, each member of the Board of Directors, and other knowledgeable persons. Of primary consideration shall be the candidate's position and/or voting record on issues involving national defense and veterans
legislation.Additional factors include, but are not necessarily limited to:
A. The integrity and character of the candidate.
B. Whether the candidate holds a leadership or policy-shaping position in his party or on a congressional committee or is likely to hold such a position in the future;
C. The nature and strength of the candidate's opposition in primary or general elections;
D. Other sources of financial assistance available to the candidate.

As you can see, the process of deciding who to support, and how much to give them, was arrived at apparently in line with the VFW PAC By-laws.  No personal prejudices were involved and nobody was left out of the loop.  The processes of decision and distribution were done strictly by the book, which none of us should consider a dereliction of duty on their part.  They did what we sent them to do:  offered our support to those who support us.  ALL of the names on that list of endorsements met the established criteria by voting as the VFW wanted them to on issues important to Veterans and current members of the Armed Forces.  That some of those names are surprising to us does not invalidate the idea of supporting those who have a demonstrated willingness to support us.

If we're still outraged and angered over the presence of certain names on the list, perhaps we should ask ourselves this:  Which is more important us?  Supporting Veteran's and our Armed Forces, or supporting the particular ideology we hold?  Should we REALLY withhold financial support for Members of Congress who voted with us simply because they sit on the wrong side of the aisle or hold ideological positions different from ours?  Which is most effective at achieving our goals and achieving our agenda of making sure Veteran's and members of the Armed Forces have the best our nation can offer?- G. Cap.

VFW-PAC By-Laws in Full


While G. Cap & I are diametrically opposed as far as politics go, we are usually on the same page as far as life, in general. He's right on this one. Even I can't argue that. 

What I will say is that there are a few criteria that are borderline, if even not being followed. Am I outraged at the endorsements of the PAC? Of course! Maybe this is reason enough that the PAC be disbanded?

An Update on the VFW-PAC

VFW Leadership at Odds with VFW-PAC

KANSAS CITY, Mo., Oct. 8, 2010 - The national line officers of Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) are at odds with the VFW Political Action Committee (PAC), calling the methodology process used by the PAC “seriously flawed at best this year and in immediate need of extensive review,” in the wake of the recent congressional endorsements made by the committee.

“Even though the law requires that VFW-PAC be a separate organization, the acronym ‘VFW’ is attached to the committee and the natural assumption is that the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States is somehow making the endorsement decisions. Nothing could be further from the truth, but perception is reality,” said National Commander Richard Eubank.

“Obviously, an organization's political positions have to reflect the opinions of its members. But those opinions can't be perceived as ‘off the wall,’ and the methodology used this year to grade candidates obviously is skewed in favor of the incumbent. That isn’t fair, and it actually subverts the democratic process.”

Because of the controversy surrounding the endorsements, VFW line officers have decided to bring the question of continued existence of the PAC to the floor during the 112th VFW national convention in August.


Richard L. Eubank
National Commander


Richard L. DeNoyer
Sr. Vice Commander


John E. Hamilton
Jr. Vice Commander

http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=5596

It appears that with the National outrage with the VFW-PAC, the VFW is considering doing away with the PAC. That just might be a good thing. We'll have to keep on top of this and insure that this doesn't fall through the cracks next August.

The VFW-PAC and the National Outrage It's Generated

A recent revelation of the political candidates that the VFW-PAC has endorsed has caused quite the National disturbance. The link to the candidates that the VFW endorses can be found here: http://www.vfwpac.org/Revised%20Endorsement%20List%20Sept%2024-1.pdf If one carefully looks at the list, there are significant numbers of candidates that are generally anti-military and/ or anti-veteran. There have been cries of outrage over the endorsement of certain candidates. I am told that the way it is SUPPOSED to work is that VFW National obtains input from the various State Departments, which obtains input from its various Districts, which obtain inputs from the various Posts within the District. It is clear that this is NOT happening. People are cancelling their memberships in droves. From the Florida State Commander of the VFW:
“On behalf of the Department of Florida, I am writing to object to the manner in which the Veterans of Foreign Wars Political Action Committee made its endorsements for the United States Congress. This year’s process is both arbitrary and capricious and devoid of Department input. Consequently, I am asking each member of the Department of Florida to disregard the list of endorsements as published in this month’s VFW Magazine and vote their own conscience since we had no input into this year’s endorsement process.

Apparently, the Committee has abandoned the previous years’ process of “advise and consent” whereby it provided a list of proposed endorsees to the Departments for comment, concurrence, additions and deletions. The Department of Florida certainly understands that the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the VFWPAC are necessarily separate entities, however, the PAC exists because of the support it derives from all Departments, Districts, Posts, Comrades and Sisters. Consequently, the Departments acting on behalf of its Districts, Posts and members should have an opportunity to voice its opinion on which Floridian candidates should or should not receive the endorsement of the VFW-PAC.

It is abundantly clear that the PAC has skewed this year’s endorsements towards incumbents. By weighting selections toward the sitting members of Congress, you are encouraging complacency and taking discourse out of the electoral process. Our position is that a process that only evaluates the voting record of sitting members inherently disadvantages those candidates who challenge incumbents. The extant process negates any previous public or private sector experience of a non-incumbent candidate.

I am concerned that the selection process adopted by the PAC will have both lasting and negative consequences on our ability to recruit and retain members in the Department of Florida. It is evident from the tone of the received emails that the VFW-PAC and by association the Veterans of Foreign Wars is not sewing the interests of some members and potential members. This regional firestorm could have been avoided if the PAC board and staff remembered the old adage that all politics are local.”- Pete Nicholson A link to the actual letter to download and read can be found here: http://www.blackfive.net/files/dept-of-fl-response-to-pac-endorsement-2.pdf

It appears that the VFW-PAC is supporting the following politicians: Barbara Boxer, Alcee Hastings, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barbara Lee, Steny Hoyer, Barbara Mikulsky, Chris VanHollen, John Dingell, Chuckie Schumer, Pat Leahy, Sheila Jackson Lee and Patty Murray. These politicians are some of the most reprehensible politicians when it comes to supporting our troops, the war effort and many of the veterans. I will admit that some of these politicians hold a better track record on Veteran’s Issues than they do in supporting our Active Duty troops. I’ve looked at couple of other Democrats that the VFW-PAC has endorsed in an effort to discern WHY the VFW-PAC threw their support behind a certain candidate, typically an incumbent and almost ALWAYS not a Veteran. What I’ve discovered is that some of their endorsement are for candidates that are pro-veteran and even pro-Military. I’m not suggesting that ALL Democrats are bad, but seriously? Sheila Jackson Lee? Barbara “Don’t Call Me, Ma’am” Boxer, Nancy Pelosi? Harry “the War is lost” Reid? Alcee Hastings, a known criminal? Come on, give me a break! I’m also not suggesting that a Veteran is always the answer. I remember a time when I THOUGHT that Jimmy Carter, an ex-Navy Nuclear Power Engineer, would be a good candidate. I even voted for the man on that premise and that alone. I was young and naïve. My first four years in the Navy, mostly during Carter’s regime, were some of the toughest times for my Squadron. Cannibalization of aircraft parts were at an all time high. Many times we had to suspend operations near the end of the Fiscal Quarter because there were no funds to operate with and I even recall a time when the entire military was wondering whether or not we’d be paid at the end of the month. That said, I think that I’d choose the side of a Veteran vs. someone who has never served and views the military with contempt or someone who is historically anti-military. To quote an excerpt from a blog; “What we need in Congress are strong Representatives that put this Nation and the Constitution ahead of personal ambitions and party loyalty. Our strong pool of Combat Veterans ready to accept the mantle of leadership is a good place to look for true Representatives”. http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/home/2010/10/iraq-vet-ilario-pantano-guns-for-congress-nc-7.html

As the Post Quartermaster, an elected Officer, for a North Texas Post, I feel that members cancelling their membership will be counter-productive to the issue at hand. It is tantamount to not voting in an election because one doesn’t care for any of the candidates. It’s quite obvious that the VFW-PAC has acted in its own interests, instead of using the tools they have to obtain a consensus. The VFW, being a democratic type system, holds elections each Spring. These officers are duly elected by its members at the Post, District, State and National levels. By dropping out of the VFW, it will be nigh on impossible to effect any change. That change MUST come from within. I won’t even get into just how difficult that it will be to recruit new members when an organization is in chaos. No, we must stay the course, make ourselves heard and elect responsible individuals that will see to our needs instead of using their position in the organization for their own ends.